Jane Doe v. WebGroup Czech Republic, a.s., et al
Original Case: 2:21-cv-02428
| Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals | |
| Case #: | 0:22-cv-55315 |
| Type | civil / private |
| Nature of Suit | 890 Other Statutes - Other Statutory Actions |
| Case Filed: | Mar 30, 2022 |
| Terminated: | Jan 02, 2024 |
| Last checked: Thursday Jan 04, 2024 1:53 AM PST |
|
Defendant - Appellee
VS MEDIA, INC.
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant - Appellee
DIGITAL OCEAN, LLC, FKA Digital Ocean, Inc.
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant - Appellee
DIGITAL OCEAN HOLDINGS, INC.
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant - Appellee
SERVERSTACK, INC.
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant - Appellee
DEBORAH MALORIE PACAUD
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant - Appellee
STEPHANE MICHAEL PACAUD
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant - Appellee
FBP MEDIA, S.R.O.
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant - Appellee
HC MULTIMEDIA LLC
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant - Appellee
HC MEDIA, S.R.O.
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant - Appellee
FTCP, S.R.O.
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant - Appellee
GTFLIX TV, S.R.O.
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant - Appellee
TRAFFIC F, S.R.O.
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant - Appellee
NKL ASSOCIATES, S.R.O.
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant - Appellee
WGCZ LIMITED, S.R.O.
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant - Appellee
WGCZ HOLDING, A.S.
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant - Appellee
WEBGROUP CZECH REPUBLIC, A.S.
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff - Appellant
JANE DOE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
|
Represented By
|
GPO
Jan 02 2024
FILED OPINION (MILAN D. SMITH, JR., DANIEL P. COLLINS and KENNETH K. LEE) REVERSED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, and REMANDED. Opinion by Judge Collins; Concurrence by Judge Lee. FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT. [12843189] |
|
|
GPO
Feb 14 2024
Filed order and amended opinion (MILAN D. SMITH, JR., DANIEL P. COLLINS and KENNETH K. LEE). The slip opinion filed on January 2, 2024 is amended by adding a footnote at the end of the first full paragraph on page 18, with the footnote to read as follows: We reject Defendants’ contention that we may not consider the allegations and evidence concerning CDNs in assessing whether Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of express aiming. Plaintiff expressly pleaded facts concerning Defendants’ use of U.S.-based CDNs in the operative complaint, and Defendants therefore squarely addressed that subject in their motion to dismiss and supporting declarations. In her opposition, Plaintiff then expressly relied on the CDNs as one of Defendants’ relevant contacts with the United States. Plaintiff again raised the CDNs in her motion to reconsider the district court’s dismissal order, and, although Defendants argued that reconsideration was unwarranted, they also argued on the merits that further consideration of the CDNs would not change the “express aiming” analysis. In declining to specifically address the significance of the CDNs in evaluating the express-aiming factor, the district court emphasized that the relevant substantive discussion of how the CDNs gave rise to personal jurisdiction was contained in the section of Plaintiff’s opposition addressing the “arising out of” factor and was not also included in the section addressing the “express aiming” factor. Even assuming that technical observation to be correct, we nonetheless conclude that Plaintiff sufficiently raised the issue below to permit this court, on de novo review, to address the merits of the parties’ arguments concerning the significance of the CDNs with respect to the express-aiming factor. See Menken v. Emm, 503 F.3d 1050, 1058 n.4 (9th Cir. 2007). An amended version of the opinion, reflecting this change, accompanies this order. The concurrence of Judge Lee is unchanged. With the opinion as amended, the panel has unanimously voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc filed on January 16, 2024 (Dkt. No. [12848284-2]). The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge of the court has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35. Accordingly, the petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc is DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc will be entertained. REVERSED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, and REMANDED. [12859598] |
| Docket last updated: 01/04/2024 1:51 AM PST |
| Wednesday, March 30, 2022 | ||
| 1 | 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Jane Doe Mediation Questionnaire due on 04/06/2022. Appellant Jane Doe opening brief due 05/31/2022. Appellees Digital Ocean Holdings, Inc., Digital Ocean, LLC, FBP Media, s.r.o., FTCP, s.r.o., GTFlix TV, s.r.o., HC Media, s.r.o., HC Multimedia LLC, NKL Associates, s.r.o., Deborah Malorie Pacaud, Stephane Michael Pacaud, Serverstack, Inc., Traffic F, s.r.o., VS Media, Inc., WGCZ Holding, a.s., WGCZ Limited, s.r.o. and WebGroup Czech Republic, a.s. answering brief due 07/01/2022. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12408505] (RT) [Entered: 03/30/2022 11:31 AM] | |
|
Att: 1
3 pgs
Docketing Letter and Briefing Schedule
|
||
|
Att: 2
2 pgs
Notice to All Parties and Counsel
|
||
|
Att: 3
1 pgs
Mediation Letter
|
||
|
Att: 4
2 pgs
Mediation Questionnaire
|
||
|
Att: 5
22 pgs
Case Opening Packet
|
||